On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:06:42 +0200, Magda <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:20:14 -0400, in rec.travel.europe, nobody <[email protected]>
    >arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
    > ... Kent_AOL wrote:
    > ... > A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
    > ... > attention than a flight attendent can give.
    > ...
    > ... Oh, come on, I've seen baby births on US sitcom television, and all they
    > ... need to do is to boil some water (for some reason which is never
    > ... mentioned)
    >Apparently it's to sterilise rags. Why would they get anywhere near the baby with boiling
    >hot rags is yet another mystery.

Sometimes it takes a little effort to get them to cry.

    > and just shout "push" "push" enough times until the baby pops
    > ... out within a few MINUTES :-) :-) :-) :-) :-);_)
    >I want to slap silly anyone saying "push" in such moments. What else do they think she is
    >doing??

Prolonging the ecstasy?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Trish wrote:
    >
    > "wahh wahhh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:0ekfh2te3rg3tarrqhabt7014n5p5feu6p@news...
    >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14997421/
    >> Flight diverted after passenger goes into labor
    >> Six weeks premature, baby is born in midair with help from crew
    >> Reuters
    >> Updated: 8:21 a.m. ET Sept. 25, 2006
    >> LONDON - A transatlantic flight from London to Boston had to make an
    >> emergency diversion after one passenger made an unexpected early
    >> arrival.
    >
    > Is it true that in such circumstances the airline often gives the child
    > free flights for life or is that an urban legend?
    >

Urban legend...but I have heard of a bunch of flowers being sent.

    >
    > A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
    > attention than a flight attendent can give.

Any woman can administer a birth and frequently do. Last I looked, it
was part of the general first aid training for cabin crew. As for
requiring more medical attention, I defy you to do an appendectomy at
23,000 feet if you dont know what you're doing. Appendicitis is life
threatening and if not treated quickly enough results in peritonitis and
death, no if's ands or buts about it. However, a normal pregnancy
results in a normal birth on or around the 40th week of gestation. The
fact that it is *early* does not necessarily mean that it is
complicated, simply that the dating was wrong.

Heart attacks,
    > appendicitis, et al are completely UNEXPECTED events.

Heart attacks are generally preceded by angina or similar warning signs.
Appendicitis is preceded by flu like symptoms, nausea, vomiting,
tenderness in the abdomen etc approximately 23-48 hours before it
becomes acute. Neither of these conditions manifest without some warning.

Not at all the
    > same as someone who is 8+ months pregnant and KNOWS, for a fact, that
    > labor is coming sometime, just not exactly when.

That's just it. The very nature of the 40 week gestation is that you are
not expected to deliver until the 40th week.

It was extremely
    > inconsiderate of her to fly KNOWING that labor might result.

None of us *knows* when labour will start. As for being the *result* of
the flight...not proven.

But, we
    > know that new mothers don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and
    > their BAYBEEEE, so shouldn't be surprised.
    >

Now, that's just asking for a flaming.

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:26:06 +0200, in rec.travel.europe, Dave Frightens Me
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> arranged some electrons, so they looked like
this:

... On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:06:42 +0200, Magda <[email protected]> wrote:
...
... >On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:20:14 -0400, in rec.travel.europe, nobody <[email protected]>
... >arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
... > ...
... > ... Oh, come on, I've seen baby births on US sitcom television, and all they
... > ... need to do is to boil some water (for some reason which is never
... > ... mentioned)
... >
... >Apparently it's to sterilise rags. Why would they get anywhere near the baby with boiling
... >hot rags is yet another mystery.
...
... Sometimes it takes a little effort to get them to cry.

Sadist! LOL

... > and just shout "push" "push" enough times until the baby pops
... > ... out within a few MINUTES :-) :-) :-) :-) :-);_)
... >
... >I want to slap silly anyone saying "push" in such moments. What else do they think she is
... >doing??
...
... Prolonging the ecstasy?

Maybe she is utterly idiot (to get herself in that situation, she has to be!) and needs to
be reminded what to do...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:56:34 -0700, VainGlorious
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><headers trimmed a bit>
    >On 25 Sep 2006 18:09:53 -0700, "Heather" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>The way I look at it is this women should not be judged so harshly in
    >>previous comments. It's not like she did this on purpose. As I'm sure
    >>she probebly doesn't want to see her child on machines struggling for
    >>it's life. Yes true doctors ADVISE pregnant women not to travel the
    >>last two months. But this women was barely into the last two months and
    >>she might of thought that she was not as far along. Especially since
    >>there are only estimated guesses by doctors how far along you are.
    >That's the crux of it, but you seem disinterested in discovering this
    >woman's motivation for flying when 7.5 months pregnant. If she needed
    >to fly to Boston for medical necessity, a change of residence or as an
    >employment requirement, I could understand. But I'll bet you dollars
    >to denarius that she just "wanted to go on a trip". I'm sure she felt
    >that she was a "liberated, free-spirited person" who "enjoys acting
    >spontaneously" and decided to hop aboard and ruin everyone else's
    >flight.

Now I know why you call yourself "VainGlorious". What you bet the
woman's motivations were is totally irrelevant.

    >If this was indeed a pleasure trip that resulted in problems for her
    >fellow passengers, then I think she should have her baby stripped from
    >her and forwarded to a family that has some brains. She should then
    >spend 3 weeks in irons in the public square where everyone who has had
    >a business trip or holiday ruined because of some selfish idiot could
    >gleefully kick her in the face till she cries blood bubbles.

You obviously have some need for this woman to be trivialized.
Why?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:04:15 -0400, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:

    >BTW, if the baby was born in mid-air, does this mean that the pilots put
    >the whole aircraft into a parabolic trajectory to give the mother a
    >period of 0G when she pushed the baby out while floating in the cabin ?
    >:-)

That'd be fun! The trajectory, not the birthing.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:

    >
    >
    > Brandy Alexandre wrote:
    >> And the reverse is also true. People emigrate/immigrate all the
    >> time. But to board a jet and expect your baby will arrive six weeks
    >> early is WAY "out there."
    > If that was intended the early arrival foiled them. I doubt the flight
    > will count for citizenship.

And since the mother is apparently British, I doubt she
would WANT it to!

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:17:08 -0500, George Max <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:04:15 -0400, nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>BTW, if the baby was born in mid-air, does this mean that the pilots put
    >>the whole aircraft into a parabolic trajectory to give the mother a
    >>period of 0G when she pushed the baby out while floating in the cabin ?
    >>:-)
    >That'd be fun! The trajectory, not the birthing.

There's a reason the NASA plane is called "the vomit comet".

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

VainGlorious wrote:


    > That's the crux of it, but you seem disinterested in discovering this
    > woman's motivation for flying when 7.5 months pregnant.

Do you really think it's anyone's business but her own?
(Certainly not YOURS, since you were not even on the flight
in question.)

    > If she needed
    > to fly to Boston for medical necessity, a change of residence or as an
    > employment requirement, I could understand. But I'll bet you dollars
    > to denarius that she just "wanted to go on a trip". I'm sure she felt
    > that she was a "liberated, free-spirited person" who "enjoys acting
    > spontaneously" and decided to hop aboard and ruin everyone else's
    > flight.

Have you flown overseas much, recently? With all the
restrictions, there's not much spontaneity involved, these
days. You've obviously never been pregnant, either, if you
think flying (mostly "cattle class" nowadays) in the
advanced stages of pregnancy is a venture one embarks upon
lightly! (And how did her giving birth unexpectedly "ruin
everyone else's flight"?)

Magda wrote:

    > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:20:14 -0400, in rec.travel.europe, nobody <[email protected]>
    > arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
    >
    > ... Kent_AOL wrote:
    > ... > A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
    > ... > attention than a flight attendent can give.
    > ...
    > ... Oh, come on, I've seen baby births on US sitcom television, and all they
    > ... need to do is to boil some water (for some reason which is never
    > ... mentioned)
    >
    > Apparently it's to sterilise rags. Why would they get anywhere near the baby with boiling
    > hot rags is yet another mystery.

Actually, I think telling him to boil water was a ploy to
keep the dithering husband out of the way while the women
got on with the business at hand! (Came in handy for a nice
cuppa when the labour was over, too.)

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:40:30 -0700, in rec.travel.europe, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... Magda wrote:
...
... > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 02:20:14 -0400, in rec.travel.europe, nobody <[email protected]>
... > arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
... >
... > ... Kent_AOL wrote:
... > ... > A pregnancy WILL result in labor and WILL require more medical
... > ... > attention than a flight attendent can give.
... > ...
... > ... Oh, come on, I've seen baby births on US sitcom television, and all they
... > ... need to do is to boil some water (for some reason which is never
... > ... mentioned)
... >
... > Apparently it's to sterilise rags. Why would they get anywhere near the baby with boiling
... > hot rags is yet another mystery.
...
... Actually, I think telling him to boil water was a ploy to
... keep the dithering husband out of the way while the women
... got on with the business at hand! (Came in handy for a nice
... cuppa when the labour was over, too.)

Not "him" - anyone in the house, of any gender! The first thing is always "boil water". If
it's for a bath, it does not have to be scalding...

"Terry Lomax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > wahh wahhh wrote:
    > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14997421/
    > > Flight diverted after passenger goes into labor
    > > The captain diverted the plane to Halifax in Nova Scotia, Canada,
    > Good, give the Limey baby Canadian citizenship instead of American. Am
    > sick of all the mothers from Russia, Europe, and India visiting America
    > to give birth to give their kids American citizenship.

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as they enter the
country legally. As long as they enter the country legally, and
don't try to sneak into the USA, I have no problem with
mothers coming to America to give birth to their children.
if they get a visa and enter the country legally, I have no
problem with them coming here to give birth to their children
as long as they mothers dont overstay their visas.

ChocolateChip_Wookie wrote:
    > sionevar wrote:
    > > "Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >> Cool. Dual citizenship.
    > >
    > > Not necessarily. Unlike the US, the UK does not grant British citizenship to
    > > a child just because it was born on British soil (or air in this case).
    > >
    > >
    > Nope...Up until 1983, duel citizenship was contingent on the nationality
    > of the father, after that time, it was the mother's nationality. So, if
    > you have an English father and a foreign mother, you wont be English,
    > you'd be foreign. Before 1983, it was the other way around. I have duel
    > nationality with New Zealand and England and free right of entry into
    > Australia simply because I had an Australian mother, was born in New
    > Zealand and registered there and my father is English. My New Zealand
    > birth certificate gives (or gave, I havnt tested it lately) free entry
    > into Australia because of the special relationship between them. Also, I
    > dont need a sponsor to emigrate there either.
    > I know all this because some years ago, I went to Peterborough to get a
    > new passport. The last one I had was my original passport and entry into
    > the UK when I was a baby. We had a scary situation because I produced my
    > New Zealand birth certificate and my british passport as proof of
    > identity but they were unsure whether I was *really* british or not. For
    > a short time I had visions of being deported to a country I didnt
    > remember and had no tie to anymore. Happily, they decided that because I
    > was born before 1983, I was British because that is the nationality of
    > my father and that they could just overlook the lack of naturalisation.
    > They issued the UK passport.
    >
    >
    > Wookie

Hear, hear. Not that I have, or want one but a US passport is the last thing
I want in my bag if travelling outside the first world.

You people assuming that's what she's after are a bit full of yourself...


"Brandy Alexandre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > nicandal <[email protected]> wrote in alt.gossip.celebrities:
    >> Terry Lomax wrote:
    >>> > The captain diverted the plane to Halifax in Nova Scotia,
    >>> > Canada,
    >>> Good, give the Limey baby Canadian citizenship instead of
    >>> American. Am sick of all the mothers from Russia, Europe, and
    >>> India visiting America to give birth to give their kids American
    >>> citizenship.
    >> Really? Got a cite for the number of British mothers flying to US
    >> to get their kids US citizenship, Terry?
    > Paranoid little Terry can see a conspiracy in a toad fart. Somehow I
    > doubt any parent from UK would think US citizen would be a greater
    > advantage to their child. Indeed, it would not.
    > --
    > Brandy Alexandre
    > -- Everything tastes better with cat hair in it. =^.^=

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:56:34 -0700, VainGlorious
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><headers trimmed a bit>
    >On 25 Sep 2006 18:09:53 -0700, "Heather" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>The way I look at it is this women should not be judged so harshly in
    >>previous comments. It's not like she did this on purpose. As I'm sure
    >>she probebly doesn't want to see her child on machines struggling for
    >>it's life. Yes true doctors ADVISE pregnant women not to travel the
    >>last two months. But this women was barely into the last two months and
    >>she might of thought that she was not as far along. Especially since
    >>there are only estimated guesses by doctors how far along you are.
    >That's the crux of it, but you seem disinterested in discovering this
    >woman's motivation for flying when 7.5 months pregnant. If she needed
    >to fly to Boston for medical necessity, a change of residence or as an
    >employment requirement, I could understand. But I'll bet you dollars
    >to denarius that she just "wanted to go on a trip".

Just a spontaneous decision to take a trip while her entire life was
being governed by that thing in her belly?

Can I please bet against you?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--